Terms & Conditions

[Colin Adams]

Hi,

We have made a decision to end HB due to the claimant being absent from his property for over four weeks due to being on holiday; he vacated his property in January 2023 – I am in full agreement with the decision – the recalculation is dated 28th June 2023.

The claimant has then submitted a new application for HB on the following date, 29th June 2023 advising that he returned to the property on 14th June 2023 after returning from his holiday.

As the claimant has responded within one calendar month of the last calculation date, would this be treated as a new claim or continuation of the previous claim?

I can see this being a continuation claim, using the original claim date and applying adverse inference for the period of absence and awarding HB from the Monday following 14th June 2023 which was 19th June 2023. As the claimant has responded within one calendar month, I am not sure this should be treated as a new claim.

Colin

[Andy Thurman]

That’s some holiday!!

As he was back (and so entitled to HB) on the date of the decision, it is simply (everyone’s favourite) a closed period supersession. It is not an adverse inference – you seem to know the facts clearly enough that he fell foul of temporary absence conditions – but it is a continuation (no new claim required)…

[Colin Adams]

Thanks Andy.

Colin

[nick dearnley]

I don’t think it can continue the previous award – that ended when he no longer met the temporary absence conditions. It’s not an adverse inference that has ended his previous entitlement; that only applies where you don’t have information or evidence of circumstances and need to decide what to do. Here, you do know his circs – he was absent over the time limit and no longer entitled because of that. There is no ‘claim’ after that date (in fact there is no ‘claim’ after whatever decision gave the previous award) until June 2023, and – assuming he’s working age – you cannot accept it and he must apply for UC.

Edit to add: typed as Andy was responding. If he was within the temporary absence limits a closed period supersession might apply.

• This reply was modified 5 days, 16 hours ago by nick dearnley.

[Andy Thurman]

Hi Nick,
If he was within the temp absence limits there would be no need for any action at all!

On the basis that the conditions of entitlement (including occupancy of the home) all existed on the date of the decision, any prior period of nil entitlement (due to not occupying in this case) is dealt with as a closed period.

[Author]

Posts